Friday, October 10, 2014

Dewey Hill, that grass-covered
dune, is a focal point of our community and a controversy once again. One or
two people are “offended” by the cross that appears on that hill on Sundays

It’s
ironic that someone could be offended by something that is meant as an
invitation, an offer of hope. They are still free to reject the message of the
cross. But their being offended should not preclude others from the right to
display the cross. All of this is allowed because of something called free
expression, a freedom that some in our society frequently propose be denied to
those of Christian faith.

It’s
all a big misunderstanding.

At
issue is the U.S. Constitution.People
often justify their bigoted exclusion of Christians from the public sphere with
the phrase “separation of church and state.” Please know this: that phrase is NOT in our nation’s founding
document.

There
is, however, something called the First Amendment, which reads exactly as
follows:“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” It goes on to speak of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and
the right of people to assemble peaceably.

But most folks who argue for separation of
church and state utter only the first part of what I quoted. This is known in
legal circles as the “establishment clause.” But they ignore the part after the
comma, the part about free exercise.Allowing a cross on Dewey Hill, especially if it is provided and hoisted
and funded by local citizens and not the government itself, is certainly not
endorsing religion. It is not an example of the government saying, “Hear ye, you
all must be Christians and worship the same way.” No. Ridiculous. But not
allowing a cross to be displayed on public property violates the
constitutionally guaranteed free expression of religion.

This
misunderstanding of the constitution, and misappropriation of a phrase, is disturbing
given the intent of our country’s founders. The phrase “wall of separation” is
attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but not in the Constitution. According to
Philip Hamburger, author of the book called “Separation of Church and State,”
Jefferson coined the now much-disputed phrase in an 1802 letter to a Baptist
congregation concerned about religious liberty. The church was concerned about
the government controlling the church, not the reverse. Far from separating
church and state, Jefferson himself and others of our nation’s founders
frequently and eloquently intertwined the two. Michael Novak points this out in
his book, “On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American
Founding.” It was Jefferson who wrote “the God who gave us life gave us liberty
at the same time.” And in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson and other
national leaders of the fledgling nation indicated a strong measure of
religious faith in opposing the British when they wrote of a “firm reliance on
the protection of divine providence.”

Legally,
others would also have a right. Current complainers want to display messages in
favor of hot-button issues, such as pro-abortion and same-sex marriage. This
may be offensive to a majority, but Madison warned against a tyranny of the
majority and that minority opinion should also have voice.

However,
the long court history on free speech refers to the right and responsibility of
governments to rein in that which violates a “prevailing community standard’ of
decency. That is subjective, to be sure. Grand Haven leaders may also decide
not to allow political messages, i.e. words on signs, because it is a visual
distraction from the natural beauty of Dewey Hill where only a flag and
cross—mere symbols without words—are displayed. The Supreme Court has ruled
that speech may be limited if not completely censored by the ‘TPM’ standard.
That is to say it can be controlled given certain times, places, and manners of
speech.

We’ll
have to see what city leaders do on this current issue. But here’s a final
point. Whether a cross is displayed on public property or not isn’t the big
issue for many Christians.For millennia
governments and religions have had a tenuous coexistence.But perspective comes from a noble source.
Nearly 2,000 years ago the Apostle Paul, a Roman citizen and often persecuted
for his Christian faith, wrote to Christians in Rome: “Who can separate us from
the love of Christ?” It’s a rhetorical question, and the answer is--nothing. No
earthly government can do so, and certainly not the misinterpretation of our
modern constitution, whether done out of ignorance or intolerance.

In
the end I, and I’m certain many like me, are less concerned about a symbol on
Dewey Hill than about the unchanging reality of a cross long ago, on a hill far
away.